Skip to main content

About your Search

20121205
20121213
STATION
CSPAN 72
LANGUAGE
English 72
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 72 (some duplicates have been removed)
met by private groups or government, voluntary action or government action. the truth is, there has to be a balance between the two. government must ask for the common good while leaving private groups free to do the work only they can do. there is a vast middle ground between the government and the individual. our families and our neighborhoods. the groups we joined and the places of worship. this is where we live our lives. this is where the needs of each are most clearly recognized and met. our communities shape our character and give our lives direction. they help make us a self-governing people. the campaign of 2012 is filled with a lot of moments i will always remember. one of my favorites is the day bob talked about. it was to meet with people in cleveland, ohio. bobble brought them together. his center for neighborhood enterprise empowers communities. ryan's story will always stay with me. when he and his wife felt called to open a homeless shelterit is not enough to give food and shelter. people needed spiritual development. people need assistance to get on with their life.
are the weaknesses to measuring how the government is doing in terms of being transparent? >> i agree that the strides being made in electronic folia - foia publication should go faster. the question i get all the time is why hasn't the white house engaged with congress on legislation to make federal spending more transparent. they have been -- the co mpttroller of the united states, the tech industry, and 23 open government groups saying we need legislation because federal spending data is not as trends. as it needs to be. information and should be published is not being published. why has the white house sent a deputy treasury secretary to capitol hill to testify against the legislation? the answer lies in the fact that making valuable data published in standardized always requires engagement with a substantive policy area. the opposition to be data at in the white house is being driven by the office of federal management. it is not that office's job to make sure things are published. i do not believe the white house leaders' working on open government data oppose what we -- white h
government and freep enterprise movement and connect those policies. >> why has there been a failure to connect? >> i'm not sure there is one reason for it and i haven't had time to think about it why it has happened but it needs to happen. the principles we stand for, free enterprise and limited government is the only way to stabilize and grow our middle class which i hope every american can attain. >> how worried are you about the republican chances -- >> you mean from the voters' perspective. the demographic changes? i don't think any voter in america -- there are voters that are locked into one party or the other but the fastest growing group is people who vote for candidates and not parties and people understand the issues and hopes that they have and offer real and concrete policy situations and real role for government to play in addressing those angst yits they face. we are one election away to do it. we have to recognize what it is and concentrate on doing it. >> how much of a danger to republicans do you think is posed by the changing demographic? >> it's not a danger but i
the government's annual report on the british economy. prime minister david cameron took questions. he also answered questions on afghanistan, secure in the u.k. border. this is just over 30 minutes. >> number one, mr. speaker. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure the whole house will wish to join me in graduating the duke and duchess of cambridge on the wonderful knew they are expecting their first child. turning to my friend's question on afghanistan. the threat to global security from al qaeda has been significantly reduced and this is in large part of the brave work of u.k. and afghan armed forces. we remain committed to afghanistan for the long-term and we continue to support the development of afghan forces through continued funds and training. our contribution that aid to help the state to police its own lands. it is this part that al qaeda won't will able to re-establish itself in afghanistan. >> the taliban is being told when most of our troops are leaving and they need to be told when sanctions to expect if they help al qaeda to return. what would those sanctions be and would an al
tomorrow, bloomberg government analyst robert levinson. >> more on the impact of sequestration with former white house budget director gordon adams. washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. on wednesday the british chancellor, the u.k.'s head of treasury released the annual report on the british economy. prime minister david cameron took questions on proposed cuts that he says will help the deficit on the u.k. he also answers questions on afghanistan, securing the border, and youth unemployment. this is just over 30 minutes. >> number one, mr. speaker. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure the whole house will wish to join me in graduating the duke and duchess of cam brage on the wonderful knew they are expecting their first child. turning to my friend's question on afghanistan. the threat to global security from al qaeda has been significantly reduced and this is in large part of the brave work of u.k. and afghan armed forces. we remain committed to afghanistan for the long-term and we continue to support the development of afghan forces through continued funds an
involved in government service for over 40 years, i count my time in the army intelligence. it is close to 50 penc. having worked in various areas in congress and the executive branch, doing what we do here is not easy. so often part of what you do with, the challenges thank you have to work together. you have to be able to work together. sometimes it is not that easy. when it came to the joint effort here, in the military itself, i feel we have developed joint news as a real strength of our military. they're not even close to the level of joyousness we have in this country. it is working. it is doing well. my biggest challenge is going to be how can we take this model to make sure we can develop similar approaches elsewhere between military and veterans' hospitals paying able to come together, at being able to operate as one incident having these huge backlogs because they're trying to move someone from the military into the veterans operation and it becomes a huge pain in the ass to get it done. if we can bring that together so we are operating as one with the ability to really respon
people have chosen a divided government. it is up to us to make this divided government work. we have to set aside partisan concerns. how to work together to prepare this economy to get people back on their feet? how do we get this sense of real security and upper mobility for all americans, especially those in need? they are the same. the old ways will not do. we need new thinking and renewed efforts from all americans. it is true that president obama won reelection. i congratulate him on his victory. on january 20, he will face a stagnant economy and a fiscal mess. you might say he will inherit these problems. bft -- [laughter] in his second term, i hope he will offer fresh ideas. failure will mean four more years. we have work to do. i'm proud of our ecampaign. i'm proud of mitt romney. serious solutions for serious reforms, we thank him for doing that. the election did not go our way. the republican party cannot make excuses. we cannot have the next four years on the sidelines. we need to apply our timeless principles to the challenges of the day. our party excels at representing
government and the lloyd. this is about an hour. -- and deloitte. this is about an hour. >> good morning. i'm the head of bloomberg government. thank you for joining us today, and thank you to deloitte for partnering with us in this event. when we launched bloomberg government just about two years ago, we had the aspiration of creating a one-stop shop, with data, tools, news, and analysis to help government affairs and government sales professionals make better and faster decisions. we went a long way toward achieving that aspiration. a big part of it is conversations on the important issues that face our nation today, particularly at the intersection of business and government. today's discussion on the fiscal cliff clearly meets that. we are honored to have such a thoughtful panel. senator mark warner, senator bob corker, congressman chris van hollen, governor tim pawlenty, who is currently president and ceo of the financial services roundtable. moderating our discussion today is al hunt. we always love having al over here. he really put bloomberg on the map here in d.c. yesterday it was
. the borrowing cost for state and federal governments would rise, and with it the borrowing cost for businesses and that could impact the economic recovery. in terms of the debt, there are various things we have heard consistently. the do not think any movement over the cliff, where there is a slope or a cliff, whatever you want to call it, is acceptable, and they're worried about borrowing costs. host: north carolina. chris. go ahead. caller: i have had a small business for many years, and in the beginning i took -- i did not take paychecks. finally, 20 years later i met the point where i could sell it, and a mix somewhere around $185,000, and my husband makes about $60,000. with the selling of my business, should i be rushed because of taxes to sell it before december 31? guest: one of the challenges in dealing with small businesses from washington is there is a wide range of business owners. you are like the vast majority in terms of the amount of money that you earn each year. what you see is different members of congress and the administration coming -- struggling to come up with policies
. we just had an -- we have board of elections. i'm going to talk -- federal government wants to do one thing in a can help us. send us more money to buy new machines. because our machines are old. our maintenance contracts are wearing out. this is all done at the local level. they got us addicted to these new expensive machines and our machines are getting old and there's no federal dollars to replace them. and then, oh, by the way, budgets are being cut. it's going from the federal to the state to the local. and so we had -- we just had an announcement where the county that was cnn was at, said it could be the most important county in ohio, that their board just laid off a third of their work pours. and now they may be able to come back and replace those folks with temporary workers down the road, but it's talent and training and all of those things that we continue to go on the cheap. we can't run a world-class election system on the cheap. it's just not possible. you can't ask a system to do more and more and more and more, have fewer resources, older equipment and less trained peop
government should stick to the constitution. the state courts have nothing to say about it. we say no gay marriage, period. we should not go around and heard them. it is unnatural for a man to be with a man. i think we should have won solid law against it. host: why keep it at a government level and not at the state level? caller: look at what is going on now. we set a lot. everybody says, i interpret it this way or that way. it is causing more and more problems. we do that all of the time. man, woman, period. host: "the washington post" adds -- good morning from minnesota on the democrats' line. caller: thank you for c-span. this is what i have not heard said by both -- most of the things i have listened to or watched between the debates on gay marriage. it is all legal documents. some states have the take a blood test. you have to get a marriage license from your state or county. when you get married, you get married in a church. % a church document with witnesses. if you get a divorce, you cannot say i will wrap up this thing we signed a in church. you have to get attorneys and illegal
governments, spending 42% of the gdp. and we want to make any effort to stop that? or are we discussing to say it has never stopped before? >> i think the earlier social security, not fully implemented. there was no medicare. it has been pretty stable since 1980. it goes up and down with the business cycle, but it is pretty stable. this is the division between the right and left. who will continue to fight about bigger government and smaller government. we will not do it by refusing to pay for the government we have, thinking the economy in the process. that would be a good start, as a backdrop. i want to touch on your question about corporate and individual taxes. the third piece is small businesses. we work out how develop a tax code that is good for competitiveness. you need to think about how those play into it. i think one of the things to keep hearing through messages with different groups of people is, while everybody is aware that the solution is going to take sacrifices from all sides, on spending, on revenues -- the confidence you get for putting the deal in place to actually has tre
? what would you allow others to do it? >> defense cuts cost jobs that the government cannot create jobs. >> i worked on a plane for four years. this is the biggest scam in the world. not the soldiers health care. host: why you say that? caller: is a huge amount of money. i was spent millions fixing a plane every day. it is more money than you can imagine. guest: the government looks at every job and activity. it is really hard to make the case that they overcharge. it is much more expensive because the way the government does it. there is performance of based logistics. you can save billions. it is the way avis would do it for cars. even save huge amounts of money. that means getting the back office out of the way. it means fewer back office jobs. they do not want to give up the power. host: the contacting system is really complicated. some of that is what the caller is saying. we have a lot of money through a system, a fair amount can disappear in ways we do not count. a history of 60 or 70 years of litigation against contractors to overcharge, contractors do overcharge. is not to say
to continue to reduce demand. >> what role should the government play in the future -- your business is in transportation, too -- we are mired in conversations about the fiscal cliff. we are talking about long-term infrastructure, a long term energy plan. >> this is the perfect opportunity for the government to work together to achieve a common goal. there is plenty of times when our interest might not call last with the interest of either of the parties. this is the opportunity we have never had before. you could have consumer, business, and the government's all working together to take advantage of this huge resource. for us, it makes so much sense because it makes business sense. we get about $1.65 a quilt when natural gas. from the government point of view, everybody is talking about jobs and the fiscal cliff. everyone talks about taxes and what is going to happen with the fiscal cliff. there has been $1500 gone to increase oil prices. you can get them that tax cut today if you invested in our report. everybody talks about entitlements. high oil prices make the social security tr
's grave for the obvious fact that we believe that the assad government has weapononized chemical and biological agents and put them in a position where they can be used fairly rapidly. as you look back over the 20 months of this conflict, this follows a series of events, one leading to the other which people said could not happen. this began, remember, with peaceful demonstrations. and when assad was unable to control them or suppress, he began to fire on his own people and they began to defend themselves in a very unfair fight which everyone thought we should take sides on the side of freedom and give the freedom fighters the weapons with which they could fight. it happened much too late. and people said, at least he's not using his air force to attack his own people and then he began to attack his own people from the air. now more than 40,000 killed. so when we see the government of assad weaponize chemical and biological agents and put them in bombs, we know this is a leader with no limits and unfortunately he follows his father who proved capable of using weapons against his
poll. it found 62% of americans would like to see the federal government leaders compromise on an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff budget measures set to go into effect next month. more than twice the 25% who want leaders to stick to their principles. a majority of all party groups favor compromise. here is the breakdown from the gallup organization. 71% of democrats say they want a compromise bursa's 21% who say the party should stick to their principles. among republicans 55% one compromise. 35% say stick to your principles. the gallup poll also found americans are more optimistic and pessimistic that an agreement will be reached before the deadline. 58% say it is a very or somewhat likely leaders will find a solution. 39% say it is not likely. democrats are much more optimistic. 77% of democrats believe it is somewhat likely an agreement will be reached compared to 33% of republicans. we will be getting to all of the latest on the fiscal clef. we want to hear from you about the idea of compromise. comments already coming in from the facebook page. you can give us a cal
government investing. the founders understood that. hamilton was in favor of prizes for innovation. some of it is about money. an open society in which we can exchange ideas. standardization. what are we talking about when we talk about a fundamental measure of a basic material that is going to be part of technology? the money is very critical. we have a problem with respect to an old model in the life sciences and applied sciences. this is a problem. i am on a panel for emerging technologies. advanced technology developments. this was news to me. it is not about hardware but about systems and components. industry has something to learn from what is happening in the way the defense department is mulling the development of new technologies from basic sciences. >> i have been working for google for the last eight years. larry and sergei were brought together to create google. private industry. google is the epitome of the with the forces come together to create what i think is an innovation now. one thing you have to learn is he wants you to have a healthy disregard for the impossible. tha
, it will be difficult to convince the u.s. government to change the way it has done business over the last 30 years -- some of that is necessary. the task is, how do you play the right role of engaging here? it is not naively giving money to liberal groups and not having a strategy. i believe this is a significant task inside egypt. it is an encouraging sign -- this is my prediction, it is going to force islamist political parties, at least elements of it to change their ideology. if the system remains open, if there is a big debate, i did not see it going backwards in terms of the diversity in egypt. it is hard for me to imagine that going backwards. >> we're going to move toward closing remarks. we will go in reverse order. bret you can have your two minutes. >> 1979, an influential article was written, dictatorships and double standards. he argued -- in a position of find myself increasingly attracted to -- the united states is better served secular authoritarian regimes against totalitarian alternatives. totalitarian alternatives, then as now, often becomes a power by means of democratic or pop
the comptroller general of the united states. he was also the head director of the u.s. government accountability office for almost 10 years. he is widely read and has written numerous articles on the debt and deficit. he has a new initiative which makes tremendous sense. his new group is looking at the efficiencies, inefficiencies, duplications in the government to try to find areas where we can save money without cutting. it is a very interesting initiative, one that you ought to look into and see about supporting. i hope we he will mention it briefly in his comments today. i will turn to the panel and sit-down and we will start discussing hopefully some of these issues. [inaudible] >> the short run problems of the fiscal cliff, but we're going to do with this debt and deficit issue and take time to summarize how we should look at these issues. i will start with david on the far side and move right across. >> thank you for coming. first, there are common denominators between the challenges at the federal, state, and local levels. some are inadequate but the controls, escalating health care cost
with a compelling story about how with the helping hand from her government she was able to raise three children by herself and have a successful career serving the people of marina and sonoma counties. she's been a tireless voice for family-friendly policies, for protecting the coastline of northern california and for bringing our troops home and ending the misguided wars in iraq and afghanistan. lynn was a leader of the congressional progressive caucus and i call her the mom of the caucus. and her passionate voice on progressive issues, she will be missed. her leadership will be missed and it will be a great vacuum for us to fill in the future. bob filner had a years' long odyssey for filipino veterans who fought along u.s. troops in world war ii but were denied benefits through their service. so the war -- the united states congress broke its promise it had made to these veterans and for decades to follow, they struggled to secure fair treatment, similar to that afforded to the men who fought alongside them. as chairman of veterans' affairs committee, bob filner was in the middle of this figh
of constitutionally limited government for a strong national defense, fighting tax hikes, and allowing families to keep more of what they earn. simple principles, but those it behoove is a lot of us to remember. the incoming chairman is congressman steve scalise. he represents louisiana's first congressional district, and was first elected in 2008, one term before the wave election of 2010. he is known as a staunch conservatives, as is fitting. he advocates for the principles of limited government, as have all the other heads of the rsc. american greatness, limited government, and traditional family values. he is a member of the energy and commerce committee, and has established himself are still living conservative views to national energy policy, which may come up today. congratulations on a successful term, and welcome. [applause] we have a few minutes to ask a few questions, to get some thoughts from jim and steve about how they see the issues ahead of for the past couple of years. jim and i have gotten to know each other over the past couple of years. i have enjoyed that. we have seen a lo
in of government at the federal level. that has nothing to do with this. that would be more on the spending cuts. host: what do you make of the back a plan being reported by the new york times saying if we cannot come to some sort of deal, we should just passed tax cuts for the middle class americans and then fight later on for spending cuts and increasing taxes for the wealthy? caller: the tax cut for the general population is great. that would be good for stimulating the economy. but the big thing is hit there needs to be a balanced plan. we need more revenue and we need less spending at the federal level. what is good for california is not good for virginia and what's good for virginia is not good for maryland. maybe we need to focus on reducing the federal government overview. been there would not be as much spending or taxes needed. then let the states deal with the taxes they need to take care of their citizens. host: robert, milwaukee, democratic caller. caller: i would like to say that the republican party, not all of them, i think it's just the tea party, they are destroying the republi
as far as national strategy? >> look, i think for those of us in a government job, where you want to be like the classic economic book is you want to look for where we are under- investing as a country or where we have too little capital as a country calling to the private sector enterprises, where because of individual private actors do not feel they get the full benefit from those investments, but we as a country would be richer if there was more investment in those areas. one of the things we are trying to look at is -- the expression is where are the death, where are those places for innovative processes where they are not able to get the capitals to become one of the fast-growing companies? the hard part of the government level is you have to ask, is it a valley of death because it should be a valley of death? because it does not make sense for the private or public sector to be investing in companies like that? or is it a case where there really is a market failure, where it may not make sense for particular venture funds to invest in certain companies, but if we had a broad
will require islamists when exposed to the public, will force and to pay the heavy price of governing. in egypt we see that already. much in the same way that in the next couple of weeks in this town we will see some ideologues, see their ideology tested. grover norquist -- both ways. political forces, wherever their ideology is grounded, as long as the system remains open tand pluralistic, but will be forced -- we see this in indonesia. in 2002, the islamist parties got 41% of the vote. the decline over the last couple of years to about 29%. i believe we are in the early stages of transformation in the middle east. we will talk about that complex competition for power. a final point -- i hope we debated a little bit. it is the issue of u.s. policy. it is my view that two years into this transition in the middle east -- and i avoid calling it arab awakening or arab spring. it is too early to characterize it. we've only seen about four countries, senior leaderships' change. -- seen their leadership's change. how we actually change and adapt and become more nimble, both in terms of how we deal wi
. they understand this thing they have a great economy growing rapidly is fragile and requires government to facilitate rather than later uncertainty. that is almost like a test tube of forcing. we had a time in which we had a huge amount of uncertainty. comes from -- some comes from government action. we had an aggressive regulatory agenda. we have not made a certain investments we have made. you add that up and you have a period in which businesses are operating under huge weight. creates the conditions under which businesses can operate in intellectual freedom. among the things government can do is create the conditions under which cost [no audio] to allow businesses to innovate. >> one of the statistics i looked at how to do with reducing regulatory barriers and i thought this was amazing. 20 employees spent 36% more to comply with regulations and that goes to the heart of what we consider to be the innovation story in this country. the small startup and that is what we're looking for as we look for the next big economic success story are the start-ups. the serbs that may have been ar
. if the government would abide by the things that we did during the depression, neighbors helping neighbors, i want to continue with -- fortunately, my husband and i made plans, even though he started give it -- getting social security in 1936 when i was in grade school, we both worked, of course, and we paid into it. so, i do not know that anyone needs to give up anything, if the government would just cut the spending and use the taxes that we give them fiscally. that is all i have to say. host: let me ask you this. we are looking at stories in the news this morning about compromise and stories on the table. as republicans look to democrats and democrats look to republicans to give something up, should the american people be asked to give up something? caller code probably so, but it is so needless when i think over the years about how much -- we did not have a lot of money. we did not have credit cards back then. i can remember that we were very careful about what we purchased. i guess you might say we were very conservative. i think i have seen the government -- i have seen this come and go with
a divided government. it is up to us to make this divided government work. we have to set aside partisan concerns. how to work together to prepare this economy to get people back on their feet? how do we get this sense of real security and upper mobility for all americans, especially those in need? they are the same. the old ways will not do. we need new thinking and renewed efforts from all americans. it is true that president obama won reelection. i congratulate him on his victory. on january 20, he will face a a fiscal economy and and i mess. you might say he will inherit these problems. [laughter] [applause] he his second term, i hope t will offer fresh ideas. failure will mean for more years of -- four more years we have work to do. -- four more years. we have work to do. serious solutions for serious reforms, we thank him for doing that. [applause] the election did not go our way. the republican party cannot make excuses. we cannot have the next four years on the sidelines. we need to apply our timeless principles to the challenges of the day. our party excels at representing that
and whether that is a cost savings at the end of each day for government and for families. >> one final question on the immediate and we will go back to the broader agenda. the president had a firm statement this week about the test ceiling where he says, i will not play that game, meaning he will not negotiate for raising the debt ceiling. how was that going to work? does that need to be part of any agreement to appoint -- agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff? >> this is serious fiscal and tax policy. it is about the economic future of our country and making sure this country continues to be the greatest economy and the greatest country in the world. it is not a game. i am with the president on this one. we saw the response of the market in august with the republicans were willing to go off of the fiscal cliff. some of them are saying it now, not paying on our debt and jeopardize the full faith and credit of the united states. this is not a game. if we do not pay our bills and pay our debt, we are going to see interest rates going up. it is not where you make the decision about spending
these government buildings and thought, what do these people do all day? i felt the more i engaged in government, the more conservative i became. i felt government was not doing a whole lot. i think government should be there for the poor. i think it should be there as a framework for how we conduct business and a structure for society. when you read the constitution, that is what the founding fathers had in mind, i believe. i do not think government is there to prop us all up, because then there would not be a safety net left for the people in life who really need it. the disabled, people who fall on hard times and need a little help along the way, but i feel as though government now has grown too much beyond what our founding fathers wanted it to be. by the people, for the people. it is a framework, in my opinion, for how we live our life and conduct business. >> go back to that table you used to sit around at home. where was it? who sat around the table? what did your mom or dad do? >> i grew up in virginia. when we all got home from school, my dad got home from work and mom was always cookin
on some of these issues. how about drugs? would you believe that the federal government has no power to negotiate the price of drugs for seniors? in the medicare program? it's true. it's tru. congress passed a law back in 2003, 2004 program that denied the federal government to negotiate prices. we could save a pile of money right there. there are some other things we could do. we could penalize hospitals who have high infection rates, re-admission to hospitals. well, the affordable health care act is already doing that and having an effect. we could also deal with the issues that occur with unnecessary payments. we can reform the system in the way that payments are made so they are more efficient and more effective, and those have been proposed by the president. in fact, there are many, many things that can be done to significantly reduce the cost of medicare without, without doing the onerous damaging proposals that have been made by many of our colleagues on the republican side, increasing the age to 67 and we'll discuss that in much more detail in a few moments. such as going aft
, a bloomberg government former members of both parties said negotiators should be able to reach an agreement. in an hour, president obama speaks to ceo's at the business roundtable, followed by news conferences with house speaker john boehner and minority leader nancy pelosi. >> the supreme court will look at what was passed in 2008 by a majority of six-three, i believe, and they will say that is precedent. indiana had a voter i.d. -- >> they decided on the indiana case, it was constitutional for them to establish id they did not say all of that was subsequently -- >> they talked about indiana. you misrepresented what i said. the supreme court is the law of the land. >> when i hear these accusations that black people voter i.d. loss disproportionately affect minorities -- implies to me that somehow we have something missing in our brain. as -- if white americans can get id to vote and go through all the processes to follow the laws, what are you telling black people? that somehow they are not good enough? that is what bothers me about a lot of the rhetoric coming from democrats and the left.
secretary of the treasury, alexander hamilton, observe energy is a leading character in good government. the president must lead in a divided government and must not advocate his or her responsibility. president obama has the responsibility to propose a real bipartisan plan to avert the fiscal cliff that can pass both the house and the senate. withdrawing from the recommendations of the simpson- bowles commission, the president could propose a plan that would not only avert the so-called fiscal cliff, but also help us avert the fiscal abyss. if president obama were to offer such a plan, republicans would act favorably. going over the cliff is unnecessary. as it has been observed in "the wall street journal," the president is boxing in the republicans. he is offering them a deal they cannot accept. first, the president has repeatedly called for a balanced solution involving both revenue and less spending. what is obvious to the most casual observer is that this plan is not a balanced. the fiscal cliff involves nearly four dollars of anticipated revenue from higher taxes for every dollar
, as we try to govern this country in the 21st century. and i look forward to staying in touch with jim and to working with him at the heritage foundation to see what we can do to improve the fate of our country so we will not become greece. no one is more worried about this nation's unsustainable debt situation than senator demint. i've seen him deinvolve over time to someone who could just not sit quietly, who had to take up the cause. in the 2010 election cycle, he was one of the strongest voices is he h would a lost our way that we'd lost our way in washington. jim is a kind, sincere man, an individual who is a joy to be around. when it comes to what's going on america, jim undstands that if we don't make some changes we're going to lose our way of life. that's what's driven him above all else, to try to keep our country a place to be place where you can be anything. i look forward to working with jim in the private sector. from a personal point of view, we've had a great ride together. it has been fun. it has been challenging, and i think we put south carolina on the map in differe
of government, and the president is proposing to grow it more. to spend more. the problem is isn't tax policy, mr. speaker. the problem is spending. you know, mr. speaker, we hear a lot about fairness. i want to talk a little bit about that now. i'm going to switch to tax policy because that's what everybody seems to be obsessed with in the media. i want to make sure we dispel some of the myths of what's going on there. i went to dictionary.com as i'm apt to do, mr. speaker, and printed out what fair is. they said free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. the first definition. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. and two, legitimately thought, pursued, done, or given proper under the rules. fair. but i think we all support fairness. i'm certain that we do, but i'm absolute certain what president obama believes is fair is different from what the people i represent believe is fair. and what i brought here, mr. speaker, is a chart from the joint committee on taxation, that's the group here on capitol hill that is in charge of measuring all the tax policy, it's a nonpartisan group, they just
government if it is not paid out? once you open up a claim, just because you have got to clean open, you have $4,000 in your account -- massachusetts, you might have $15,000 in your account. that money, if you do not dried out, the state keeps it, i believe. -- draw it out, the state keeps it, i believe. guest: i am not sure how that would be handled. the difference between what is happening in the state fund, which is state-funded, and the federal reimbursement, i believe the federal reimbursement only goes to the states after they pick up the money. guest: that is my understanding as well. i did nothing states are able to keep money that is not disbursed to the unemployment. -- do not think states are able to keep money that is not disbursed to the unemploymed. -- unemployed. host: for you, mr. tanner, who is better at running these programs, the state governments or federal governments? guest: states have very different economic climates. what is going on the dakotas right now, they're not even eligible for this emergency unemployment extended benefits, versus new york, which has the highe
think it is no way to govern. it is a giant mistake to have all of this in a pool of ambiguity. as i understand it, now, you would know more, it truly is a stalemate. they are not talking. >> you point out, it is the same players. i think you will agree the players that matter most are the president, speaker finger. what we know about their personal -- speaker john boehner. what we know about their personal relationship right now? >> it started out last year when they were working on the debt ceiling. it was called the merlo and the correct meeting. in other words, john boehner would have a merlo and obama would chu nicolette's. -- chew nicorettes. and they had iced tea for obama. of course, john boehner had his cigarette and put his cigarette in the ash tray away. they have not closed the deal. -- close to the deal on the personal relations. i think that is a shame. somebody said, instead of sponsoring a breakfast you should sponsor a weekly dinner between president obama and speaker john boehner and everyone would agree to pay for it and let them just talk and get to know each othe
deadline, tomorrow, a look at some of the challenges facing state governments. we will have live coverage from the u.s. chamber of commerce beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. later, a discussion on programs for older americans. will be hosted by republicans on the senate committee on aging. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern. coming up in a moment, a panel on innovation and the economy. after that, we will hear from presidential economic adviser gene sperling. then how sequestration could affect national security and the defense budget. >> he would punch me, strangle me, take things from me. >> i have been on that bus. >> all of us in this country are starting to see people coming out and talking about their experience of this phenomenon that so many of us experienced in one way or another and have had no words for, other than adolescents, other than growing up. people are starting to stand back and say, this is not actually a normal part of growing up. this is not a normal right of passage. this is a moment where there is a possibility for change. the director and i decided to s
, government, and not spending enough money to keep people employed. inking money out of the system would drive off the unemployment system. ployment up the uneml rate. to become the primary reason to extend unemployment is just the compassionate thing to do. people rely on the benefits. it would be a crushing blow. they provide a crucial crutch for the economy that still needs it. host: we are taking your calls the numbers are there for you. we will still have the line for those receiving of employment insurance -- tool 2-585-383. you can give us a call on that line. i want to talk about the bureau of labor statistics on unplowed numbers that are out as a just a couple of minutes ago -- on employment numbers that are out just as a couple of minutes ago in an employment rate is down to 7.7%. mr. josh bivens, how will that play into the debate over the extension of unemployment insurance? guest: i am not sure. i am afraid we have had such low expectations that people might see this as a fantastic jobs report. i have not gone into the details. the headline number, 146,000 jobs is not fantastic. i
. where are we going to get it? coming from the government, everybody thinks that are entitled to something. thank you for the call. the top solution is to break the congressional gridlock. north dakota on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. the number one priority is bringing jobs home from china. host: you are on the air. go ahead, roger. caller: these people that sold our country out, they need to be exiled to themselves. host: good morning on the independent line. what is the number-one priority as the president embarks on a second term? caller: the issue a want to talk about this morning is one both sides agree with. everybody agrees but the tax code needs to be reformed, simplified. it needs to be changed in a permanent way where businessmen and individuals can plan for the future. there are multiple ways to do this, cut in reductions, giving everybody a fair chance to the tax code. i think it will really chance the economy. put it on a solid basis for businesses to plan and go into the future with. host: what do you think the president's number one priority should
: what do you think about addressing medicare spending? caller: the biggest thing the government has to do is all of the waste in everything. defense, medicare, everything. just go after it. host: is that enough to get through our deficit and debt? caller: and raise the taxes. host: all right. mike come massachusetts, note -- mike, massachusetts. go ahead. caller: i am x military. the only reason i say that is that we have spent $2 trillion on these wars over the last 10 years, which is a whole lot of money and they say they are going to review their approach to these in the future because we get so much money. as far as the entitlements go, what they should do is agree on the taxes for people making under $250,000 per year first, then come back and fix the rest of it. that would probably be the best way to go. that way the republicans can save face and say that they refused to bend on taxes and that that is what they will have to go back and do later, for sure on that note. host: also on the sunday talk shows yesterday was senator bob corker. here is what he had to say. [video clip]
home is the american dream. government support excessive borrowing has turned into a national nightmare, close quote. and the focus of that editorial was, we still haven't fundamentally reformed that, including at f.h.a. so i hope we start getting on that track starting today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator menendez. >> thank you very much. i'll be brief. i look forward to hearing the secretary's response on how f.h.a. balances the goals of remaining self-sufficient without taxpayer funds, but also helping what is still a fragile housing market in ensuring first-time home buyers can get credit. there is a clear case to be made in my mind that but for f.h.a. in the midst of this housing crisis, we would have a far greater crisis on our hands. and so reconciling the fiduciary responsibilities here to the taxpayers as well as the mission to people of america is incredibly important. i look forward to hearing that. and with your indulgence, mr. chairman, when it comes to my time in questions, while i certainly care about f.h.a., i have a even more pressing issue in the state of new jer
was in the clinton administration and in charge of of the social programs and the federal government i had a wonderful staff of civil servants, highly trained, highly competent. i would not have wanted to pay them a lot less. they were doing the work that you seem to want to have done, which is to scrutinize all of these programs and put pressure on the agencies to cut those that are not working and to ferret out all of the inefficiencies as well as the fraud. i think jim has had some experiences. guest: the federal government has tried to roll up waste and fraud, but when taxpayer money is involved it is different than a private enterprise. the ability for fraud to creep into government programs financed by taxes is much tighter than private enterprises -- because shareholders have their own money that they invest. there are a certain amount of problems. for instance, medicare, probably in the order of $60 billion per year in a wasteful and fraudulent payments. this is a huge number. it is in part because medicare programs paying a billion claims a year for medical services. the ability t
, the revenues have gone down, the income tax has gone up, and the size of government has gone up. from my standpoint, a value- added tax is just a way to grossly expand the size of the government, and it does not fix our revenue problems. more importantly than that, just the point where i think this argument ends up, the american people would annihilate any party that passed a national sales tax rate. if the democratic party thinks they are in charge now, and they are, and the republican party has done some things to marginalize itself, but if you want to resurrect a republican party, give me a value-added tax. >> let's take the value-added tax off the table for this the session, and i want to turn to donald marron and bring it back to the reality we are today and get your numbers perspective. speaker boehner offered up to the president $800 billion in revenue, all through closing loopholes dealing with deductions, no increase in rates. first of all, on the basic math, can you get to $800 billion over 10 years that way? how would you do it? and more importantly, as i worked my sources on
is on the subjects of the presidency, political history and policy issues of importance of the governance of this country which on behalf of the miller center and the university of virginia, thank you very much for being here tonight. we are adjourned. >> we will have this program again in about three hours on c-span. next john boehner and nancy pell low si on the so called fiscal clive. >> writers institute, i think the writers institute is something that is very important in the culture. we are a culture of words, of voices. words are key to our imagination and capacity to envision things. we ourselves are not completely tied to print on the page but i think that there is no other art form so ready accessible, other than film which we work with too. it cap chures the human spirit. >> this weekend join book tv as we look tpwhrind scenes at the history of new york capital city, albany saturday at noon eastern on book tv and on c-span2 >> house r house speaker told reporters the white house has wasted another week on negotiations over the fiscal cliff. >> this isn't a progress report becau
not prohibit the federal government's from funding high- speed rail projects. that is a good first start. as long as there is language and bills that prohibit us from funding, we are going nowhere. so if you'd be good enough to withdraw your language in the appropriation bill or tell mr. mccarthy to do that, that would be a good first start for us. we are not going to get $1 as long as there is a long voyage -- language in the appropriation bills that says no federal money can be spent on california high- speed rail. that does not help us. that does not help but get any more product -- money to the project. that is why i say we are looking for private investment. >> amendments are not meant to help you. they are meant to stop this product until we see a plan terry we have been talking about this for two years. but something i can bring back to my state, my district and say this is the plan. like the last time we talked about it, i suggested he said that with mr. dan richard and go over the plan and review it. i would be happy to have mr. iraq -- mr. richard sit down with you and review w
, alexander hamilton, observe energy is a leading character in good government. the president must lead in a divided government and must not advocate his or her responsibility. president obama has the responsibility to propose a real bipartisan plan to avert the fiscal cliff that can pass both the house and the senate. withdrawing from the recommendations of the simpson- bowles commission, the president could propose a plan that would not only avert the so-called fiscal cliff, but also help us avert the yawning fiscal of this ivory for me -- it this goal -- fiscal abyss. if president obama were to offer such a plan, republicans would act favorably. going over the cliff is unnecessary. as it has been observed in "the wall street journal," the president is boxing in the republicans. he is offering them a deal they cannot accept. first, the president has repeatedly called for a balanced solution involving both revenue and less spending. what is obvious to the most casual observer is that this plan is not a balanced. the fiscal cliff involves nearly four dollars of anticipated revenue from
from the white house was let's fix this problem by incorporating a small businesses and less government intervention to curb the deficit. it has been astronomical. then i heard barack obama say the way we are going to do it is by making more cuts in various ways. he was saying by making more cuts and the only people it is going to hurt is the working class and somewhat of the middle-class. he should mention the fact that out of control spending has a lot to do with the credit card crunch. specifically because of the middle-class. i think if we get those tax cuts centered with them, i do not think the poll would be affected. you have these small companies that are developing, and he is saying have those small companies hire more people and get them involved, but come consumer expenditures. that is partially i think a solution. host: you are calling on the republican line and you think hillary clinton would make a good candidate. would you vote for her in 2016? caller: i think she would be a very vital aspect to the political process. as far as her running for president, 2016 -- god knows
of healthy economic growth that the government is willing to have the spending cuts we promise to do two years from now. we will be saying, we cannot afford to cut government spending because it will throw us into recession. >> that brings me to the next issue i would like to discuss. to get to the president's tax increase package that he is looking for, he is calling for higher marginal tax rates. in addition, a reduction in the value of deductions and other expenditures. higher taxes on capital gains, dividends. the way i count this up, if you include the limitations, the top marginal tax rates for some would be between 41 and 45%. that is just the federal level. we have states with varying income tax rates. some americans would be paying more than half of their income. it would exceed 50%. if the president got all the tax increases that he wants, is likely that could precipitate a recession? >> it is not only likely, it would certainly do so. it is cataclysmic. if we go from a 15% dividend tax, to 45%, that is ridiculously bad news for an equity markets. it is something we saw on the
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 72 (some duplicates have been removed)